Citation Numbers: 87 N.C. 393
Judges: RUFFIN, J.
Filed Date: 10/5/1882
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
The competency of the plaintiff, Johnston, to testify at all in the matter since the act of 1879, ch. 183, amending section 343 of the Code, seems doubtful, to say the least of it. But the point does not appear to have been taken before either the clerk or the judge, and of course we cannot now entertain it.
(395) Taking his affidavit to be evidence, it certainly supports the finding that the judgment had not been entirely satisfied, and this was all that was needed to justify the leave given to issue execution.
This judgment having been rendered before the adoption of the Code in 1868, is subject only to a presumption of satisfaction under the act of 1826, and not to the statute of limitation as prescribed in the Code.
There is a plain distinction between this and the case of Pasour v.Rhyne,
We can perceive no error committed in the court below, and the judgment is therefore affirmed. Let this be certified.
No error. Affirmed. *Page 309
Cited; Lee v. Beaman,
(396)